On the Dichotomy of Holism and Individualism in Social Metaphysics: Approaching Hegel’s View

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The paper gives a survey of contemporary research and thematizes the topics of ontological and methodological holism and individualism within social metaphysics, and does preparatory work for an examination of this issue from a Hegelian perspective. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the current debates and roughly maps the positions. The second part presents a Hegelian conceptualization of this issue as proposed by Gillian Rose. She argues in favor of the unacceptability of holism and individualism (functionalism and action theory) and points to a third, unified perspective, which finds an adequate expression in Hegel, according to her.

About the authors

Denis Konstantinovich Maslov

Institute of Philosophy and Law SB RAS; Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: denn.maslov@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5399-5732
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, junior research fellow Novosibirsk, Nikolayev Str., 8

References

  1. Дуглас, M. (2020). Как мыслят институты. М.: Элементарные формы. Douglas, M. (2020). How Institutions Think. Moscow. (In Russ.)
  2. Ницше, Ф. (1996). Сочинения. В 2 т. Т. 2. М.: Мысль. Nietzsche, F. (1996). Works. In 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow. (In Russ.)
  3. Розов, Н. С. (2008). Спор о методе (Methodenstreit) и проблема специфики социогуманитарных наук. Статья первая: основания, предыстория и начало спора. Сибирский философский журнал. Т. 6. № 1. С. 37-42. Rozov, N. S. (2008) The dispute about the method (Methodenstreit) and the problem of specificity of social sciences and humanities. The first paper: grounds, background and the beginning of the dispute. The Siberian Philosophical Journal. Vol. 6. No. 1. Pp. 37-42.
  4. Теннис, Ф. (2002). Общность и общество. СПб: Владимир Даль. Tönnies, F. (2002). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. St. Petersburg. (In Russ.)
  5. Филиппов, А. Ф. (2002). Между социологией и социализмом: введение в концепцию Фердинанда Тенниса. Ф. Теннис. Общность и общество. СПб.: Владимир Даль. С. 386-446. Filippov, A. F. (2002). Between Sociology and Socialism: An Introduction to Ferdinand Tönnies' Confession. In F. Tönnies Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. St. Petersburg. Pp. 386-446. (In Russ.)
  6. Buzzoni, M. (2004). Poppers methodologischer Individualismus und die Sozialwissenschaften. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. Vol. 35. Pp. 157-173.
  7. Bubner, R. (1995). Hegels politische Anthropologie. In R. Bubner. Innovationen des Idealismus. Göttingen. Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Pp. 72-85.
  8. Danto, A. (1962). Methodological Individualism and Methodological Socialism. Filosofia. Vol. 13 (4 Supplemento). No. 626. Pp. 312-337.
  9. Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions Think. Syracuse, N.Y. Syracuse University Press.
  10. Elster, J. (1983). The Case for Methodological Individualism. Theory and Society. Vol. 11. No. 4. Pp. 453-482.
  11. Epstein, B. (2009). Ontological individualism reconsidered. Synthese. Vol. 166. No. 1. Pp. 187‑213.
  12. Gilbert, M. (1989). On Social Facts. London. Routledge.
  13. Guala, F. (2022). Rescuing Ontological Individualism. Philosophy of Science. Vol. 89. Iss. 3. Pp. 471-485.
  14. Haslanger, S. (2015). What is a (Social) Structural Explanation? Philosophical Studies. Vol. 173. No. 1. Pp. 113-130.
  15. Haslanger, S. (2022). Failures of Methodological Individualism: The Materiality of Social Systems. Journal of social philosophy. Vol. 53. No. 4. Pp. 512-534.
  16. Hobbes, T. (1839). Leviathan. In Molesworth, W. (ed.). The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. III.
  17. Jackson, F., Pettit, P. (1990). Program Explanation: A General Perspective. Analysis. Vol. 50. No. 2. Pp. 107-117.
  18. Jackson, F., Pettit, P. (1992a). In Defense of Explanatory Ecumenism. Economics and Philosophy. Vol. 8. Pp. 1-21.
  19. Jackson, F., Pettit, P. (1992b). Structural Explanation in Social Theory. In Charles, D., Lennon, K. (eds.). Reduction, Explanation, and Realism. Oxford. Clarendon Press. Pp. 97-131.
  20. Just, R. (2004). Methodological Individualism and Sociological Reductionism. Social Analysis: The International Journal of Anthropology. Vol. 48. No. 3. Pp. 186-191.
  21. Knapp, P. (1986). Hegel's Universal in Marx, Durkheim and Weber: The Role of Hegelian Ideas in the Origin of Sociology. Sociological Forum. Vol. 1. No. 4. Pp. 586-609.
  22. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
  23. Maslov, D. (2024, forthcoming). I that is We and We that is I: A Defense of Methodological Holism and the Primacy of Collective Agency. The Russian Sociological Review. Iss. 1.
  24. Neuhouser, F. (2000). Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.
  25. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
  26. Pettit, P. (2011). Groups with Minds of Their Own. In Goldman, A., Whitcomb, D. (eds.). Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. New York. Oxford University Press. Pp. 242-268.
  27. Pettit, P., Schweikard, D. (2006). Joint Actions and Group Agents. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Vol. 36. No. 1. Pp. 18-39.
  28. Pippin, R. (2008). Hegel’s Practical Philosophy: Rational Agency as Ethical Life. New York. Cambridge University Press.
  29. Rose, G. (2009). Hegel Contra Sociology. Oxford University Press. London. Verso.
  30. Searle, J. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
  31. Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of Politics. Vol. 1. Cambridge. New York. Cambridge University Press.
  32. Stekeler-Weithofer, P. (2019). On Hegelian Logic of Us. Hegel Bulletin. Vol. 40. Special Iss. 3. Hegel and the Philosophy of Action. Pp. 374-397.
  33. Stekeler-Weithofer, P. (2021). Hegels Grundlinien Der Philosophie Des Rechts: Ein Dialogischer Kommentar. Hamburg. Felix Meiner Verlag.
  34. Tännsjö, T. (1990). Methodological Individualism. Inquiry. Vol. 33. Pp. 69-80.
  35. Tuomela, R. (2010). The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. New York. OUP.
  36. Tuomela, R. (2013). Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. New York. New York. Oxford University Press.
  37. Van Buowel, J. (2019). Do mechanism-based social explanations make a case for methodological individualism? Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. Vol. 50. No. 2. Pp. 263-282.
  38. Wood, A. W. (1990). Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge, England. New York. Cambridge University Press.
  39. Zahle, J. (2007). Holism and Supervenience. In Turner, S., Risjord, M. (eds). Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology. Pp. 311-342.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).